May 16, 2015

"You made me untouchable, and by doing that you made me a target... You are the reason I room alone when I deploy. You are the reason that wives are terrified that their husbands are cheating on them when they leave, and I leave with them. When I walk into a room and people are laughing and having a good time, you are the reason they take one look at me and either stop talking or leave. They’re afraid. They’re afraid of me, and it’s because of you. They are afraid that with all of this 'power' I have, I can destroy them. They will never respect me or the power and the authority I have as a person, or the power I have as an Airman, because I am nothing more than a victim. That I as a victim, somehow I control their fate. With one sentence, I can destroy the rest of their lives..."

Male staffers said they'd also seen some female aides barred from solo meetings with the boss, and that they benefited in some instances from the exclusion of their female colleagues in high-level meetings, at receptions with major Washington powerbrokers, and just in earning a little more face time with their bosses.

And to go way back to WWII and the Women's Army Corp — which I did last Sunday as I was thinking about my mother, who was one of the earliest WACs — it reminded me of the 1943 slander campaign:

In 1943 the recruiting momentum stopped and went into reverse as a massive slander campaign on the home front challenged the WACs as sexually immoral. Many soldiers ferociously opposed allowing women in uniform, warning their sisters and friends they would be seen as lesbians or prostitutes. Their lewd humor and snide comments betrayed a fear that if women became soldiers they would no longer serve in a masculine preserve and their masculinity would be devalued.... Critics outside the military included religious fanatics with wild imaginations, reactionaries who wanted to prevent social change, and right-wing critics of Roosevelt's social programs. Other sources were from other women — servicemen's and officer's wives' idle gossip, local women who disliked the newcomers taking over "their town", female civilian employees resenting the competition (for both jobs and men), charity and volunteer organizations who resented the extra attention the WAACs received, and complaints and slander spread by disgruntled or discharged WAACs. All investigations showed the rumors were false, but they had originated with American soldiers, not with enemy agents.

In the ultimate future cock-block, the government will require men to have body cameras surgically implanted on their bodies hooked up to a wireless penile plethysmograph that will immediately begin uploading video to a government cloud site whenever the man becomes aroused in the slightest.

I was old enough to remember some of this and the hysterical tone of that Wikipedia article is in line with many Wikipedia articles on political subjects. I'm surprised that "War on Women" wasn't in there. Maybe it was as I did not read all of that slime.

My parents had a cartoon on the party room wall in the basement showing a WAC squatting over a urinal in a mens room with a guy standing at the next one looking astonished. It was mostly humor and the women laughed, too. It was not "right wing critics of Roosevelt" as they were Roosevelt voters as was everyone I knew then.

The music of WWII, which I like, is all about men going away and missing their sweethearts. The fact that some women joined the WACs or the WAVEs or the other organizations like the WAAFs was something late in the war, for the most part, and I cannot recall any anger about it.

Of course, the two adult rule? A complicit husband and wife "team" could shoot that all to hell. I never opined on that.

I have a dark view of human nature.

I can completely understand the male aversion in corporate, or military, America to being alone with a female. In fact, being alone with any "victim" group isn't in anyone's best interest, especially when you are in a position of authority and/or power.

The problem stems from the unreasonable expectation that women cannot handle, nor should they be expected to tolerate, the rougher aspects of male social interaction that is typical in a line unit. The behavior that was seen as somewhat normal amongst groups of rough men has now become criminalized and in the control of female service members.

What is claimed as "equality" is actually an officially enforced deference to female sensibilities when it comes to social interactions within the ranks.

I also read that story about Congressmen not wanting to be alone in any circumstance with female staffers and it sure made sense to me. Why take the risk of a sexual harrassment charge?

I know professors in the US who will not meet alone behind closed doors with a student for the same reason. How about you, Prof. Althouse - when a male student comes to your office to discuss private matters, such as his future career plans, do you shut the door or make sure to leave it open?

There are good reasons why so many things were in male and female spheres formerly. It just doesnt, and never will, be possible to override human nature.Male teams, at work and at war, for instance, are spontaneous, self generating based on primal hunting instincts. Women, with only few rare exceptions, don't belong.

I am a military officer. Your career is over if you are accused of sexual harrassment. Doesn't matter how innocent you are or ridiculous the charges. The system is all about senior leadership appearing they are doing something.

SGT Ted is right. I grew up in the 60s/70s. Older brother made sure I could handle myself. I gave as good as I got. That is probably why I've never expected deference to my female sensibilities, especially if I enter a traditional "man cave". If a guy chooses to open a door for me, though, it is much appreciated.

It goes well beyond that. A female Lieutenant General was forced out because she doubted the claims of a women officer against a male officer for harassment when the witnesses, two other officers (one male and one female) disputed her story. That female general was a distinguished former astronaut and is now retired.

At work I needed to have a meeting with a young woman with great breasts who I suspected had feelings for me. Realizing that this could be potentially problematic I invited the woman from HR to join the meeting as a witness.

SGT Ted said...The problem stems from the unreasonable expectation that women cannot handle, nor should they be expected to tolerate, the rougher aspects of male social interaction that is typical in a line unit.

Most of the pressure for women in combat roles is coming from officers who want the combat arm credential for promotion. The same goes for the women fighter pilots who were pushed through in spite of doubts by the instructors.

I think some of the subsequent women pilots are OK but there are still doubts about Martha McSally, for example, and this is most likely the consequences of the early treatment. Again, the PC crap negatively impacts women later who are qualified.

Women can make excellent pilots (better than men) in low performance aircraft and helos.

There are a number of physical issues that make excelling in fighters an issue. Among them weak necks, short forearms, and body size. Not that there cant be excellent female fighter pilots, but the pool is a lot smaller.

I read the National Journal article and the only reason given for male Congress Critters wanting to avoid solo meetings with female staff was the appearance of improprieties. No mention of protecting themselves from charges of harassment. I can't help but think that the author of that piece is being willfully ignorant.

"which I did last Sunday as I was thinking about my mother, who was one of the earliest WACs"

Father says, "Your mother's rightShe's really up on thingsBefore we married, Mommy served In the WACS in the Philippines"Now, I had heard the WACS recruited Old maids for the warBut mommy isn't one of thoseI've known her all these years

I don't see why anyone objects to a male dominated professions. I don't know why anyone thinks it's not important if masculinity is devalued.

I want my Marines to feel very masculine. If they see girls among them, the will tend to not feel as masculine. They are doing something that girls can do, not something that only men do. Why is this complicated. I rely on peer pressure and this self-image of masculinity to get the most out of them.

My sources say the report of women operating in the experimental Marine units is devastating. So the SecNav has decreed that women wear male dress uniforms. I guess that will fix it.

The Drill Sgt,"Women can make excellent pilots (better than men) in low performance aircraft and helos."

During my instructor tour, I had three female students. One was above-average, one average, and one below average. (So overall - average!!) The above average one went to the squadron that shared a hangar with us, and I subsequently worked with her occasionally on some administrative issues, and it appeared that she was a very capable officer.

The "below average" female student cried when I gave her a "down" (failure) on one of her flights. (That didn't happen on the three occasions when I gave a "down" to male students.)

"That women make better pilots than men is a myth that has no basis in reality."

I was surprised some years ago to learn that women do not make good surgeons. I assumed better small muscle skills and smaller hands would help. It may have changed since then and some of my students have gone into surgery but, in the early days, I was shocked by some of what I saw. Maybe the early enthusiasts are less skilled than later members.

I have a foreign policy think tank client that brings in multiple groups of interns in the course of the academic year. They send the interns down to the Hill all the time for briefings & hearings.

You know what the female interns (no slouches themselves in either the looks or the brains departments) call the Hill? "Dreamland for the Boys" -- because there so many gorgeous women there.

Of course, these women who work so hard at their looks would never, ever dream of using their physical attributes in the work place. That would just be wrong. I mean, everyone knows that no matter how ambitious & driven women are, they're always moral & above board. They would never ever try to hasten their ascent up the power ladder by combining business with pleasure by screwing a powerful man. That just never happens.

Why everyone knows that the only people who ever do immoral things in the service of their overweening ambitions are men. /sarc

Skyler said...I don't see why anyone objects to a male dominated professions. I don't know why anyone thinks it's not important if masculinity is devalued.

I want my Marines to feel very masculine. If they see girls among them, the will tend to not feel as masculine. They are doing something that girls can do, not something that only men do. Why is this complicated. I rely on peer pressure and this self-image of masculinity to get the most out of them.

The Israelis used women in combat back in 1948. The results were not good - many men died trying to protect the women. Women still serve in the Israeli armed forces, just not in combat roles. I saw an interesting news segment some years ago about how some of the women serve as weapons instructors. They get a lot of practice with the weapons, so they're quite good. A young man's ego hates it when a woman is better at him at something normally considered masculine, so it serves to motivate the men to try harder. Apparently, it works. The Israelis can't afford a lot of the politically correct bullshit that goes on in the US military.

I served in the military for 13 years. My brother retired from the Navy. Both of my stepsons have served, one of them is career Navy. With this PC bullshit going on, I wouldn't encourage any of my 3 grandsons to serve in the US military. I probably wouldn't encourage my granddaughter to, either. When the mission of the military changes from winning wars and defending the country to making the US safe for political correctness, being in uniform isn't worth the risk.

"Military brigs are full of men who don't understand the power of women."

My understanding is that brigs and stockades are mostly a thing of the past. When a military member commits a crime that is not a civil crime; something like desertion, they are just discharged.

I saw a guy a week ago who got a "other than honorable discharge" and is now trying to get into the military again. It took some research to find out why he was discharged (discharge codes are acronyms) but it was a behavior issue. He has no chance to get in again.

Affirmative action should have been (was supposed to be?) an ex post facto review to identify and resolve latent class prejudice. Instead, it mutated into a policy that recycled the class-based diversity regimes that preceded it.

I mostly agree with you, but if any woman does it's the one who penned this letter.

Althouse,

"If so, then I should never have been born! "

My brain is going into overdrive trying to figure out if it's non-sequitur or solipsism that's winning out here.

(Hint: your birth is not an inherent attribute of your mother's service, it's an accident.)

SGT Ted,

"The problem stems from the unreasonable expectation that women cannot handle, nor should they be expected to tolerate, the rougher aspects of male social interaction that is typical in a line unit."

That's definitely part of it; and anyone who read Sgt. Mom over at Chicagoboyz knows that there is at least one woman who could.

Michael K., Drill Sgt:

The best thing I ever read about female pilots being rushed past their abilities was a pre-web* article in American Spectator titled "Who Killed Kara Hultgreen?" Awesome in its takedown of the rush-them-into-service mentality that resulted in Ms. Hultgreen's death from being put into a situation she wasn't ready for. The one thing that really stands out, in my recollection, was for how (relatively) long the Landing Safety Officer tried to wave her off... "an eternity, in navy landing operations" is my paraphrase of what I recollect was written.

Just to illustrate the differences, here are the minimum male passing APFT scores, alongside the female score required to max the standard (and score a perfect 300, or 100 points on each event.) using the 18-21 age group.

Failing any one of them and not improving steadily, absent a medical profile, will eventually get you kicked out of the service.

2 Minutes of pushups: Male minimum: 42. Female perfect score: 42.

2 minutes of situps: Both sexes max out at 78. Minimum is 53. Surprised they went to a unisex standard. (The max is down from when I was in that age group, where the male max was in the 80s. I peaked at 107 but that was dumb. Didn't do so well on the run immediately after!)

2 mile run:

Male minimum: 15:54. Female perfect score: 15:36.

That is, a man who comes in any more than 18 seconds behind a female who nails her perfect score is an APFT failure.

I would say to keep up in a line infantry platoon... just to carry his weight and not be that one guy who always falls out on road marches and whatever, he would have to be around the 250 to 260 level on the APFT minimum. Anything less than that and he'd start getting his NCOs on his ass.

That doesn't sound all that high, but a score of 270 or above and 90 percent on each event is the bar to reach, and in a line unit, if you're not there, you'd better be in the neighborhood.

The margin between 260 and 270 isn't that much, though. A few reputations of situps. One or two extra pauses for breath doing sit-ups or pushups.

The margin between max performing woman and the barely passing by the skin of his teeth male is very small, and that male had better get his act together, because he's embarrassing his squad.

The margin between the exceptionally-performing woman of outstanding fitness and the minimum acceptable performer in the line infantry platoon is vast and probably insurmountable.

Those goddamn idiots trying to push this shit won't believe us, but it's true, and they're finding it out now.

The Marine Platoon Officer Course is chewing up women and spitting them out. I hope none of them were severely or permanently injured by this stupid social experiment.

Meanwhile, the Army is running women through Ranger School for the first time this month. Or was. Out of I think 18 of them who started the course, precisely zero made it through the first phase. A few of them will be recycled, with a whole helping of extra coaching and mentoring.

These women, by the way, are taking up valuable and scarce slots in the premier infantry school in the Army. These are very expensive, highly sought after, and there aren't enough slots to go around as it is for every qualified male combat arms officer or infantry NCO who wants to go who also has a good chance of completing the course and earning the tab.

Chances are very good that one or more of the women who try will experience a stress fracture of the pelvis, hip, or body part. We have studies that indicate that women are eight TIMES more likely to incur these types of injuries in military training environments than men are. And that was BEFORE we started trying to push them through infantry schools.

Few of the women pushing this have any idea of the daily grind in an infantry unit. If they're in good shape, maybe they make it ok through the Light Leaders Course at Schofield, or Airborne School (extremely watered down since it became coed) or Air Assault School which is less than 3 weeks long and a lot of it in class. Other than the 12 mile road march at the end (with a pack that is MUCH lighter than a typical infantry combat load), there's not much of a physical strength component at all.

But these women make it through these courses, or their non-infantry male cohorts make it through these short courses and they have no idea what it is to go through the grind day after day, week after week, months on end, and the toll it takes on your knees, spine, neck and joints.

It's tough for men, and a lot of damn fine men aren't up to it, either.

It seems to be the case that (a) any accusation by a woman against a man is to be believed and it also seems to be the case that (b) a man is to treat a woman as he would treat another man. (b) is not possible where (a) is true but under Rules for Twitterheads both must be done.

In Oakland they've passed a law that nothing is to happen to students who defy and threaten teachers. But something will happen to these students and also to their classmates - they will have no good teachers. Is that fair to those classmates? Under Rules for Twitterheads that is what is fair, say the twitterheads.

Women are as strong as men even if the measurements of strength are done differently - see Rules for Twitterheads

. Supporters [of WACs] outside the military included Communists, fanatics with wild imaginations, ultra Feminists and Lesbians who wanted to push social change, and left-wing supporters of Roosevelt's social programs.

"The WACs and the other women's units in WWII were intended to take non-combat jobs to free men for combat roles. It is not allowed to say that now."

Another thing people don't understand is that you had 9 million women aged 18-25 during WW2 and 90% of them had no desire to be in the "service". They had a hard enough time recruiting a couple hundred thousand Waves/Wacs and Female Marines.

Give the air force a break. They don't qualify for the Marines because they know both of their parents and can spell their name correctly more than twice out of five tries."

Heh. That's a lie air force weenies tell themselves late at night when they get impotent. Like when liberal twits explain it's not their cowardice, its that they are "too smart" to be accepted by the military.

I was a Marine NCO in a line company. Both 2D and 3D LAR Battalions. And I while I've been accused of a great many faults, stupidity was never one of them.

Smartest guys I ever knew were in the S-3 of a line company. They don't tolerate Stupid because Stupid gets good men killed.

"Meanwhile, the Army is running women through Ranger School for the first time this month. Or was. Out of I think 18 of them who started the course, precisely zero made it through the first phase. A few of them will be recycled, with a whole helping of extra coaching and mentoring."

I have a ranger tab so I will let everyone in on what it takes to get through. There are 4 phases. They say 3 but it is really 4.

The first phase is a bunch of administrative crap, some stupid crawl through mud/combatives drills, PT test with 64ish min PUps, 68ish min sit-ups, and 40 minute 5 mile. There is also a 12 mile ruck march with a 45 pound pack and a 3 hour time limit. It takes about a week and you get about 2 hours of sleep a night. This washes out ~60% of the men who attend.

After that there are 3 field phases. The first is squad drills where you move about 3-5 miles, perform a mission which is either observation or defensive positioning then move back. The terrain is fairly flat and if you avoid the swamp no biggy.

Second field phase is Mountains. Physically this is the hardest phase. Every ones ruck weighs 60 pounds. If you are in weapons squad you add 20ish pounds more. You get 2 MRE's a day. Your movements have some serious vertical elements. You get about 1 hour a night on average to either eat your MRE's or sleep. There is a 5 day field problem, 1 day at the barracks then a 4 day field problem.

3rd Phase is Florida. Flat movements and not as difficult except for the swamp movement/river cross. The field problem is 10 days straight. There is one patrol where you get out of a helicopter and have to move about a mile on a time sensitive standard that was challenging physically. You get a little more sleep but same amount of food.

At the end of each of these phases you do peer evaluations for your squad. If you have 8 people in your squad you give one person a 1 and one person a 2 and so on and someone is getting a 8. Every phase people get "peered." You have to get above a 60 to avoid getting peered out. If you get all 1's you get a 100. If you get all average scores, i.e. 4.5 in a squad of 8, you get a 75.

During each phase you must get a "Go" to pass the phase. Very arbitrary and subjective. Leadership positions are rotated twice a day. You have to get the people you are leading to do stuff they don't want to do after they are starved and sleep deprived.

If you do this in winter you will get frost bite. I still don't feel hot/cold in my finger tips well and have burning incidents where I grab hot things.

Unless they change Ranger School fundamentally there is a vanishingly small number of women that could pass.

A friends daughter joined the air force. During basic training she got pregnant by another trainee. Combined training certainly is comprehensive. The Air Force didn't kick her out and she was even allowed to complete her advanced schooling. It's mind boggling.

I'm still wondering if Ann blames the military for being born or praises the military for being born. But unless she comes up with an explanation of why the military was indispensable to her birth her comment makes absolutely no sense. But then, Ann on the military and sex should not be confused with linear thinking.

Achilles said...And here I thought based off your handle you worked for a living..

- Enlisted 69- Applied for OCS, made the wait list, went to Nam (reapply when you get back they said)- Nam 70-71, E3-E5, Mostly Signal Intel, but did some Infantry stuff till my clearance arrived. 101 ABn. Standing in paddies watching M-48's go by, I decided that was civilized71, back from Nam, volunteered as a Drill SGT- Top Grad at DS school, offered E-6, passed and got out- went back to college and joined ROTC. - 74 Commissioned Regular Army Armor, with a top 5% fellowship to grad school

Women certainly do not belong in Marine Corp 03 billets. However, I think many women could compete well as aviators, including flying fighters.

My first jet carrier landing training instructor was a female Navy Lt. who was both skilled and attractive. Years, later I went with my daughter to the graduation event of the Air Force test pilot school at Edwards AFB. It was an extraordinary, impressive formal event in a large hanger with all officers wearing dress blues. (The Air Force has seemingly unlimited amounts of money available in contrast to the Marine Corps that works out of deployment boxes lined with waterproofing paper.)

Present for the event, but not in the graduating class, were over two dozen women with wings and rows of combat ribbons...and frankly, some of them looked fabulous.

The guy who was given the award as the best pilot of the class was greeted at his table by his stunning wife dressed in a lovely gown who, as it turned out, had been given the same award the previous year. She was just there that evening as his wife, but her name was in the program that listed all prior awardees.

Really, it was breath-taking.

It shouldn't go unmentioned that there is now a female Marine flying with the Blue Angels in their C130. I look forward to the day that one is selected to fly one of their Hornets....and if she's as cute as that Fat Albert pilot, so much the better.

WAY too many misinformed and poorly informed comments on this thread for me to even try and correct them but my sister-in-law would be upset with me if I did not point out that Israeli women can and do serve in the IDF infantry- it's called the Caracal Battalion, and it is a gender-mixed (about one-third male, two-thirds female) infantry battalion.